Having attended both a good school (UChicago) and many so-so universities, I have concluded that students that go to state schools, etc. have no clue how easy they have it. As an undergraduate at UChicago, it was laughable to think of having a multiple-choice exam. There is no comparison in the quality of education, and the expectations are much higher at better schools. Moreover, it is necessary to have some degree of grade inflation. Now without over generalization, I posit that many (if not most, but not all) students at higher tier universities would excel at local state or private lower tier schools. How do I know this? Well my grades at U of C were based on the average raw score of an exam receiving a C+ to B-, and a standard deviation or so above that average raw score would give you a high B or perhaps an A. Therefore, grades were based upon somewhat of a competition, although at some points professors would give A's to those who deserved them despite the class structure, and the competition was between high caliber students. Therefore, a "B" student at an upper tier school should be equivalent or better than a top student at a lower school (on average of course). In other words, I am much more impressed by a student from Harvard with a 3.5 GPA than a student from Texas Tech with a 4.0. These trends are reflected in the admissions process and rightfully so. It's a fact of life and anyone who says otherwise is plain naive. Of course there are always exceptions, and many good students at all schools, but statistics are only as good as their population sample.
